Strike During Conciliation Is Statutorily Barred: Karnataka High Court Restrains LPG Workers from Proceeding on Proposed Strike

“Section 22 Is Not a Formality — Public Utility Workers Cannot Strike During Pending Conciliation”, In a significant ruling reaffirming statutory limitations on the right to strike in public utility services, the Karnataka High Court has restrained members of a petroleum workers’ union from proceeding with a proposed strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held that Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expressly prohibits a strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and for seven days thereafter. Since conciliation was scheduled on the very date of the proposed strike, the Court found the strike to be impermissible in law.

Strike Notice Amid Pending Conciliation

The respondent Union issued a strike notice dated 24.01.2026 proposing to go on strike on 12.02.2026, alleging that its demands had not been addressed.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), engaged in the supply of LPG and fuel, approached the High Court seeking urgent relief to restrain the strike. The Corporation contended that it is a “Public Utility Service” within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and a “controlled industry” under Section 2(ee).

The Corporation submitted that conciliation proceedings had already commenced and were scheduled to continue on 12.02.2026, the proposed date of strike. Therefore, in view of Section 22(1)(d), the strike was statutorily barred.

Objection to Maintainability: Is a Writ Against a Union Maintainable?

The Union opposed the petition on the ground that it is not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and that the employer had alternative remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. Reliance was placed on judgments declining civil suits seeking to restrain strikes.

The High Court rejected the objection.

The Court clarified that the petition was not filed to enforce a private contractual right, but to enforce a statutory protection conferred upon the employer under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

“In the backdrop of the facts obtained in the present petition, the Writ Petition is maintainable as the same is filed to enforce the right available under Section 22 of the Act, 1947.”

The Court distinguished decisions where relief was sought post-strike or through civil suits under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Here, the employer invoked the preventive jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 before the strike commenced, to enforce a statutory prohibition.

“Right to Strike Is Subject to Statutory Restrictions”

While acknowledging that the right to strike is recognised in industrial jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that it is not absolute.

The Court observed that where a strike is declared in compliance with statutory requirements, courts may ordinarily refrain from issuing prohibitory orders. However, where a clear statutory bar operates, judicial intervention is justified.

Section 22(1)(d) specifically prohibits employees in a Public Utility Service from going on strike “during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and within seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.”

Admittedly, conciliation proceedings between BPCL and the Union were pending and scheduled on the very date of the proposed strike.

“In the instant case, as it is noticed that the conciliation proceeding is still going on, Section 22(1)(d) of Act, 1947, comes to the rescue of the petitioners.”

Public Interest Consideration: LPG and Fuel Supply

The Court also took note of the essential nature of BPCL’s operations.

The Corporation submitted that any disruption in LPG and fuel supply, even for a day, would affect the public at large. Considering that petroleum products constitute essential commodities, the Court found that limited protection was warranted in public interest.

However, the restraint was carefully confined.

The Court directed that only members of the respondent Union who are working under the petitioner — whether directly employed or through contractors — shall be restrained from proceeding on strike on 12.02.2026.

No broader or indefinite prohibitory directions were issued.

Distinction from Rohtas Industries and Bombay High Court Decisions

The Union relied on Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, where the Supreme Court observed that employers could seek damages post-strike under the statute.

The High Court clarified that the cited decision concerned post-strike remedies. In the present case, the employer approached the Court before the strike date to prevent violation of Section 22.

Similarly, reliance on a Bombay High Court decision refusing injunction under Order XXXIX CPC was distinguished on the ground that the present petition was under Article 226 seeking enforcement of statutory prohibition, not merely civil injunctive relief.

The writ petition was allowed in part. Members of the Karnataka Petroleum and Gas Workers’ Union working under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., either directly or through contractors, were restrained from proceeding on strike on 12.02.2026 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings.

The ruling reinforces a clear legal position: while industrial action is a recognised tool of collective bargaining, in Public Utility Services it must strictly conform to statutory discipline. The pendency of conciliation proceedings is not a procedural formality but a mandatory cooling-off period during which strike action is legally impermissible.

Date of Decision: 11 February 2026